Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thaniel Fox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect both to The Haunting of Alaizabel Cray. Pertinent details can be taken from the edit histories to flesh out the Cray article. ~ trialsanderrors 11:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thaniel Fox
These two appear to be characters in a book called "The Haunting of Alaizabel Cray" which doesn't even have its own article. I think it suffices to say that they fail WP:FICT in a big way. I prodded Thaniel Fox a few days ago and it was removed by the article's author with the reason "I think its unfair that my article is going to be deleted when others such as dinosaur planet and many of the comic book character pages remain even though mine is much better written." Axem Titanium 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. And I still think its a good reason. Removing it simply because YOU don't think its noteworthy is a personal opinion and unfair as their are countless, even shorter articles, about even more obscure characters that remain here regardless. Nubula 09:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- The existence of other articles does not justify this one. It only means that I have not seen those articles and therefore have assessed them as to their notability. If they truly are more obscure and less notable, I can assure you that they will be listed for deletion as well. Axem Titanium 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. And if your major complaint is the fact that The Haunting of Alaizabel Cray doesn't have its own page then fine, I'll go ahead and write it. Happy? Nubula 09:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to be missing the point. These characters are not notable, which is a fact, not an opinion. The book's notability is an entirely different question and you may want to look at WP:BK for that. These character pages are entirely not notable enough for their own pages, however, because they can easily be included in the main article's page under a "Characters" section. A problem many new editors have is the compulsion to create character articles for every character in their favorite book. Axem Titanium 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Personaly I think, even if you remove the biography, their is still far to much information about this character to just slip it in on the main page. Nubula 11:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also, now I think about it, your claim that this characters lacks notability is just an opinion, and not a fact, unless you can back it up with evidence in some way. Have you conducted a vervifiable poll or have some other form evidence to prove the character has no signifigant following? Nubula 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Personaly I think, even if you remove the biography, their is still far to much information about this character to just slip it in on the main page. Nubula 11:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Google test - only 950 hits. Axem Titanium 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. Now you can point me to the where Wikipedia places the cut off point. Because I've yet to see the rules where it states you need x amount of hits to give a character its own page. Nubula 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to be missing the point. These characters are not notable, which is a fact, not an opinion. The book's notability is an entirely different question and you may want to look at WP:BK for that. These character pages are entirely not notable enough for their own pages, however, because they can easily be included in the main article's page under a "Characters" section. A problem many new editors have is the compulsion to create character articles for every character in their favorite book. Axem Titanium 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Is anyone going to answer me? Nubula 13:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm only going to ask this one last time. Is anyone going to answer me or is this debate closed. Nubula 18:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Have a look at Wikipedia:Search engine test, but also WP:FICT. The search engine test is not conclusive, and there is no fixed number of google hits that establishes that a subject is notable. -- Chondrite 19:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm only going to ask this one last time. Is anyone going to answer me or is this debate closed. Nubula 18:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to the article on the book -- Simon Cursitor 15:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to The Haunting of Alaizabel Cray (Silver Award Winner at the Nestlé Smarties Book Prize 2001, "in the best story-telling traditions of authors like Joan Aiken, Philip Pullman and Tamora Pierce (Bookseller)", etc), a successful book by a major publisher. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Assumng the book is notable, Merge and redirect to The Haunting of Alaizabel Cray per WP:FICT. Asking for evidence that characters have "no significant following" is asking for proof of a negative. According to logic and WP:V, the burden of proof lies upon those making a claim, in this case a claim of notability. -- Chondrite 06:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge both to The Haunting of Alaizabel Cray as the two characters don't seem to be notable enough to stand on their own, but as part of the book itself, which does stand on its own. B.Wind 02:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
